We can only hope. We’ll see if the rumored “EOS-R flagship” perhaps due in February solves this issue.
At least two new EOS M cameras coming in 2019 [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The concern about the "lack of an upgrade path" lacks any merit. First, who in their right mind would want to use an "M" lens on an "R" camera? Second, who, still in their right mind, would want to use one of the behemoth "R" lenses attached to an "M" body? As the owner of an M50, I laugh when I think of attaching that 50 1.2. Now to my 5D would be another story altogether. 
"We believe that EOS M will be discontinued someday in the distant future, so don’t worry about the system going away any time soon."
Is there a "don't" missing or what?
I think that the way Canon positioned the EOS R system is very good for the EOS M system. While EOS R sets focus on IQ and ambitious lenses, it's compromise is bulk, weight and price. EOS M on the other hand is all about being small, light and cheap and the compromise is less ambitious lenses (esp. slow zooms). But the recent 32/1.4 shows that Canon now sees the EOS M system mature enough to offer such a fast prime (and thus more specialised lens). So all in all i think Canons marketing came to the conclusion that EOS M users don't have much need for an upgrade path but are more interessted in better M gear.
Personally, i would like to buy a M5II, but i need it in march 2019 and i guess it won't arrive before that. So i will buy a M50 to replace my old 400D as my secondary body.
B.
Is there a "don't" missing or what?
I think that the way Canon positioned the EOS R system is very good for the EOS M system. While EOS R sets focus on IQ and ambitious lenses, it's compromise is bulk, weight and price. EOS M on the other hand is all about being small, light and cheap and the compromise is less ambitious lenses (esp. slow zooms). But the recent 32/1.4 shows that Canon now sees the EOS M system mature enough to offer such a fast prime (and thus more specialised lens). So all in all i think Canons marketing came to the conclusion that EOS M users don't have much need for an upgrade path but are more interessted in better M gear.
Personally, i would like to buy a M5II, but i need it in march 2019 and i guess it won't arrive before that. So i will buy a M50 to replace my old 400D as my secondary body.
B.
Same here Simon. The M looked cute and interesting, but not necessarily compelling, or moving strongly in that direction.
With the R, if finally looks like we're heading in a compelling direction, if not yet fully there. I'm failing to see a strong audience for the M.
Of course I've been wrong already today, so there's that...
Personally I am not a professional photographer, just an enthusiast who went from IXUS to Powershot G12 and finally 700D. I travel a lot and most of my pictures come from visiting foreign countries and sightseeing, therefore I value compromise between weight and image quality which APS-C 700D bring to me. However if I had to upgrade today I don't know which Canon model would I choose.
I understand that EOS M is the lineup designed for me, but when I compare M5 to for example Fujifilm X-T3 or X-H1 it feels very poor.
- very few lenses to choose (I have not found 18-135mm equivalent or some decent travel zoom lens?)
- no weather sealing (last time in Washington I got caught up by rain and even in Europe it generally rains a lot)
- no dual card slot (I always fear that I lose pictures after investing money and time all-day travelling to visit foreign country and culture)
7D Mark II has such features but it weights +1kg and does not have EVF. I don't care about IBIS or any video features, but I really hope that somewhere there is a EOS M "Pro" model in the development which has dual card slot and some sort of weather sealing to match those Fujifilm cameras. If they can do it, why not Canon? I would gladly pay for it 1500+ € but going 3000+ € for fullframe EOS R is a no-go for me.
EDIT: Well, apparently the is a 18-150mm for EOS M so that's my bad, sorry Canon
I understand that EOS M is the lineup designed for me, but when I compare M5 to for example Fujifilm X-T3 or X-H1 it feels very poor.
- very few lenses to choose (I have not found 18-135mm equivalent or some decent travel zoom lens?)
- no weather sealing (last time in Washington I got caught up by rain and even in Europe it generally rains a lot)
- no dual card slot (I always fear that I lose pictures after investing money and time all-day travelling to visit foreign country and culture)
7D Mark II has such features but it weights +1kg and does not have EVF. I don't care about IBIS or any video features, but I really hope that somewhere there is a EOS M "Pro" model in the development which has dual card slot and some sort of weather sealing to match those Fujifilm cameras. If they can do it, why not Canon? I would gladly pay for it 1500+ € but going 3000+ € for fullframe EOS R is a no-go for me.
EDIT: Well, apparently the is a 18-150mm for EOS M so that's my bad, sorry Canon
Last edited:
The M already has a strong audience as has been said repeatedly! It has brought Canon from zero to number one or two in mirrorless sales. You simply don’t seem to grasp that the majority of camera purchasers are not like you, or most on this forum. But they do pay for the development of our fancy enthusiast/prosumer gear that’s sold in much smaller numbers than the cute tiny consumer stuff.
The target market for the M system is most likely not interested in an upgrade path to the R or even EF ecosystem. They are two separate lines that will co-exist together.
The target market for the M system is a consumer+ who is upgrading from the powershot line. They might want a slightly more adaptable system where they can interchange lenses but I would bet 90% of the consumers won't take off the kit lens with a few possibly having a two lens lineup. The M cameras are light and small. I would bet Canon would take a page out of Sony's book and keep the chassis the same for the R line even with the APSC-R (maybe some minor changes like adding a joystick)
That's not the way it's working. On FF you have tons of EF lenses to choose from to cover all needs. On the Rebels/Crop cameras, you have only a limited selection of EF-S lenses. I choose deliberately only crop cameras due to weight/size. I am happy with the EF-S lenses. But I also do have a few EF lenses that do not exist in EF-S. To me, the EOS-M system is too limited in its lens choice. But I have no interest at all to buy a FF (e.g. RF) line (this refers to some point in the future, when EF and EF-S is gone, and purchasing that is no option). At present I am happy with my EF-S/EF mix of lenses and crop body. EOS-M can't do that.
There is one thing that I feel is going to be the biggest factor in how a M5 II stacks up, and that's the viewfinder.
I was recently in a camera shop that had a variety of cameras ready to try out. I was struck by how incredibly tiny the Canon M5 viewfinder was. Most mirrorless cameras nowadays have a FF-equivalent magnification of 0.7-0.8x. The Fuji X-T20 is often complained about for having a small viewfinder at 0.62x. I did a direct comparison between the M5 and the Fuji, back and forth multiple times, and I doubt the Canon has more than 0.5x magnification, 0.55x at the very most. That's like an old Rebel DSLR!
I really like the idea of Canon M. Compact cameras with mostly good performance, and some lens gems like the 11-22mm, 22mm f2 and 32mm f1.4 that offer very good performance for their size and weight. But viewfinder size impacts the enjoyment of taking pictures so much that I can't be interested in a system where the largest viewfinder is 0.5 or 0.55x.
I was recently in a camera shop that had a variety of cameras ready to try out. I was struck by how incredibly tiny the Canon M5 viewfinder was. Most mirrorless cameras nowadays have a FF-equivalent magnification of 0.7-0.8x. The Fuji X-T20 is often complained about for having a small viewfinder at 0.62x. I did a direct comparison between the M5 and the Fuji, back and forth multiple times, and I doubt the Canon has more than 0.5x magnification, 0.55x at the very most. That's like an old Rebel DSLR!
I really like the idea of Canon M. Compact cameras with mostly good performance, and some lens gems like the 11-22mm, 22mm f2 and 32mm f1.4 that offer very good performance for their size and weight. But viewfinder size impacts the enjoyment of taking pictures so much that I can't be interested in a system where the largest viewfinder is 0.5 or 0.55x.
As it should be. The M line has been, from day one, primarily focused on size. The R line, in contrast, will be focused on quality/performance. I think it is a smart move to keep that split, and if an M6 mk II has the fully articulated screen of the M50, i will seriously consider getting one with the EF-m 22mm as a travel/general going around setup.
The main thing I'm not happy about the M5/M50 is the size of the green AF square, in that I can't make it small enough to make autofocus as precisely as I want. Generally speaking, I just prefer the rebel/xxD interface to the EOS M. Otherwise, I would have bought one quite a while ago (despite this, I have almost purchased an M5 many times)
OK, first up I'm just a hobbyist. I bought a M5 last year, partly I wanted something smaller/less attention for days out, e.g. trips into London. When I progressed through 20D & 7D to a 6D, the difference in IQ was amazing. But sensor tech has moved on; as such I was very pleasantly surprised by the M5.
I feel overall that we are at a cross roads, with the new R mount and so on. I too expect the current low end DSLRs to become mirrorless, so do expect an R Crop at some point.
A health gremlin also focussed my mind on lighter gear, so I've let GAS get the better of me. I've bought an XT-3 + Kit lens to play with (£200 trade in bonus for ye olde 20D!); my wife has happily taken the M5 off me (likes the EVF, as she'd be using a Sony RX100 Mk1).
So no, I'm not ‘dumping Canon'.. at least not yet. I may well swap my 6D for an R at some point, as I have a nice EF collection. But I'll give the Fuji a go first. As sensor tech improves further, I do feel that for many of us non-pros, full-frame (though lovely) is now overkill; especially when there are pros using Fuji and M43.
I feel overall that we are at a cross roads, with the new R mount and so on. I too expect the current low end DSLRs to become mirrorless, so do expect an R Crop at some point.
A health gremlin also focussed my mind on lighter gear, so I've let GAS get the better of me. I've bought an XT-3 + Kit lens to play with (£200 trade in bonus for ye olde 20D!); my wife has happily taken the M5 off me (likes the EVF, as she'd be using a Sony RX100 Mk1).
So no, I'm not ‘dumping Canon'.. at least not yet. I may well swap my 6D for an R at some point, as I have a nice EF collection. But I'll give the Fuji a go first. As sensor tech improves further, I do feel that for many of us non-pros, full-frame (though lovely) is now overkill; especially when there are pros using Fuji and M43.
Just curious what is the use-case that M lenses do not cover the need? If I'm correct, the existing M lenses cover the range of 11 to 200mm (17-320mm equivalent) that is quite useful for everyday use from wide to telephoto. There are a few primes (22, 28 and 32mm) and macro (28mm). I know there is no tilt-shift or longer telephoto lenses, but those are generally reserved for more pro use-cases which are covered by EF/RF series anyway. What is the limiting factor here?
Last edited:
and....
- Fuji X-T3: $1,499
- M5: $829
Then start comparing the price differences in some of the lenses (2-3x more).
I like the direction you are thinking. I actually really hope that Canon releases an M-"Pro" that is more of a direct competitor to Fuji. But, until Canon releases more lenses like the EFm 32 f/1.4, I have to think these systems are aimed at different photographers.
I agree with this.
In fact as an EF and future R mount owner I still think I will get an M5 MII as a handy carry camera where the larger systems would be cumbersome. Think like family gatherings, weddings, kids/grandkids in the backyard and whatever you think of. With the 18-150 it is a sweet and light fun camera to use with far more versatility than the G1 series as it will still mount any of the EF lenses ever made that will be around for decades at a minimum used.
This indicates Canon will stratify its market by crop versus full frame, as it originally did with EF and EF-S. This explains why they've been in no hurry to push out great glass on M. Yes, there are some good lenses, but you haven't seen a 35 f/1.4 L II sort of affair on M ever.
It's a bit arbitrary, as any 7D2 user will tell you, to push crop down as a lower tier. It has its uses and can be the best tool for a job. But, there you have it. One interesting implication for this is that the 7D3 equivalent could theoretically come out on M. This is unlikely, of course, but having adapted EF long lenses to an M5, it's surprisingly useful.
I'll say this much. If the M5 II has 10 fps with full autofocus with focus priority set, then I'd shoot it over the R. If the readout blockage doesn't get fixed to present decent FPS for the upper end R cameras, I think my next Canon mirrorless will be an M.
It's a bit arbitrary, as any 7D2 user will tell you, to push crop down as a lower tier. It has its uses and can be the best tool for a job. But, there you have it. One interesting implication for this is that the 7D3 equivalent could theoretically come out on M. This is unlikely, of course, but having adapted EF long lenses to an M5, it's surprisingly useful.
I'll say this much. If the M5 II has 10 fps with full autofocus with focus priority set, then I'd shoot it over the R. If the readout blockage doesn't get fixed to present decent FPS for the upper end R cameras, I think my next Canon mirrorless will be an M.
Exactly. There are only a few here in forum and elsewhere - especially DPReview staff - who constantly cry about the "oh so limited, oh no fast primes, oh no big expensive lenses, oh no Tilt-Shift EF-M lens lineup."
If you push back and ask the whiners, what exactly they would like to have in additional EF-M lenses and what size and price they'd be willing to accept, the whining dies down pretty quickly.
Personally, I'd buy 1 more EF-M lens: an "as compact as possible", moderately fast, short tele prime. Something like an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM which I'd use as a 135mm FF equivalent "headshot and concert lens".
exactly. Only a few folks fail to see and understand this. It was and is clear all along. 2 mirrorfree mounts, optimally chosen for APS-C [EF-M] and FF [R] and 2 lineups. One full-fledged EOS R / RF program, 1 EOS-M / EF-M lineup, limited to those lenses that can be made more compact for crop image circle. As in the DSLR era.
Cannot find it in Canon official specs, but according to Digitalrev EOS M5 EVF magnification is 0.62x.
https://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-eos-m5-vs-sony-a6500-how-do-they-compare
True, but I would wonder about the battery. I am in the camp hoping the 7DIII has a more powerful battery, which would influence the size.
Then, of course, there is AF speed for sports/wildlife photography.
So, I agree, unlikely.